Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The messenger of God, speaking to Mary concerning the child she would bear after she met Joseph the son of Heli, who was the biological father of Jesus, said to her, that God would give to her son the throne of his ancestor 'King David."
Jesus was a genetic descendant of King David, and of the seed of Adam.
Ah. . . well . . , hummm . . . I can live with that.
Points of agreement I have with the Episcopalian church.
That is not how The Episcopal Church tends to approach faith and belief. Our list of “non-negotiable” points are very few, and largely shared with most every other Christian tradition. Those relatively few points are:
•There is one God, who is a Trinity of Persons.
•The First Person of the Trinity, traditionally called “Father,” created all things at the beginning of time.
•Jesus Christ, the very human rabbi from 2000 years ago, was and is the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, and our Savior.
•The Holy Scriptures (the Bible) are the revealed word of God, written by human beings under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit, who is the Third Person of the Trinity. The Bible contains all things necessary for salvation.
Although with regard to the second bullet point, according to John 1:3, Col. 1:16 and Hebrews 1:10 it was the preincarnate Jesus who did the actual work of creation. The Father just gave the command for Jesus to do the work.
Ha, by referencing "Episcopalian" I meant the type of questioning and in-depth reading and discussion found in something like the Episcopal Church's EFM theological study program. It's four years long--first OT, second NT, third, McCulloch's history of Christianity, fourth, various books on different aspects of Christian life. It's not a program where everyone sits around listening to one person and grinning and nodding in agreement with one another around a core set of "belief" but rather a deep dive of study and discussion.
You would probably enjoy it. It was especially good because we had people of different backgrounds in our group; for example, a woman who had been raised Wiccan but gravitated toward Christianity, a woman with a Jewish parent and a Methodist parent raised with neither religion but Jewish cultural observances, a woman from India, a man who was 30 years in recovery from alcoholism and so forth. It was facilitated by a woman raised Catholic who became an Episcopal priest. The different perspectives brought so much to our learning.
But they are what Christ claims about Himself so they are Christian. That is why I claim to follow Christ and His Holy Spirit (Comforter) as my guide to the Truth that God has "written in our hearts," NOT the Bible that exists only to tell us about and validate Him. Your reverence for the Bible instead of Jesus makes you more of a Bibleian than a Christian, IMO.
That's a whole bunch of maybes and could haves for something that is supposed to be a definite prophecy, ESPECIALLY since the writers of the NT had the OT available to them.
The fact that some two thousand years later we have some questions about why Matthew and Luke constructed their genealogies the way they did doesn't negate the fact that they knew what they were doing and why they constructed their genealogies in the manner that they did.
Last edited by Michael Way; 05-21-2019 at 08:22 AM..
Ha, by referencing "Episcopalian" I meant the type of questioning and in-depth reading and discussion found in something like the Episcopal Church's EFM theological study program. It's four years long--first OT, second NT, third, McCulloch's history of Christianity, fourth, various books on different aspects of Christian life. It's not a program where everyone sits around listening to one person and grinning and nodding in agreement with one another around a core set of "belief" but rather a deep dive of study and discussion.
You would probably enjoy it. It was especially good because we had people of different backgrounds in our group; for example, a woman who had been raised Wiccan but gravitated toward Christianity, a woman with a Jewish parent and a Methodist parent raised with neither religion but Jewish cultural observances, a woman from India, a man who was 30 years in recovery from alcoholism and so forth. It was facilitated by a woman raised Catholic who became an Episcopal priest. The different perspectives brought so much to our learning.
Ooops! My misunderstanding. I might enjoy it at that.
The fact that some two thousand years later we have some questions about why Matthew and Luke constructed their genealogies the way they did doesn't negate the fact that they knew what they were doing and why they constructed their genealogies in the manner that they did.
Translation: Matthew and Luke didn't have a clue, and made things up out of thin air, forcing apologists for millenia afterwards to twist, and turn, and churn, and jump, and scold, and attempt to justify the lineage.
The fact that some two thousand years later we have some questions about why Matthew and Luke constructed their genealogies the way they did doesn't negate the fact that they knew what they were doing and why they constructed their genealogies in the manner that they did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by normstad
Translation: Matthew and Luke didn't have a clue, and made things up out of thin air, forcing apologists for millenia afterwards to twist, and turn, and churn, and jump, and scold, and attempt to justify the lineage.
It's hilarious to watch.
Instead of trying to understand the possible reasons behind why Matthew and Luke constructed their genealogies the way they did, you automatically assume that they didn't have a clue. It's intellectually dishonest and lazy, as well as hostile. I've already laid out some of the possible reasons why the genealogies look the way that they do.
Instead of trying to understand the possible reasons behind why Matthew and Luke constructed their genealogies the way they did, you automatically assume that they didn't have a clue. It's intellectually dishonest and lazy, as well as hostile. I've already laid out some of the possible reasons why the genealogies look the way that they do.
There's no reason for not understanding both to be the correct lineage. Jesus is descended from both Nathan and Solomon. There could well have been a Levirate marriage somewhere along the line which would have resulted in a crossover between the two lines. Additionally, Joseph could have been adopted by Heli as a son, or Luke's genealogy could be referring to Joseph as a son-in-law by way of marriage to Mary, rather than as a son. Actually, except for Luke 3:23 where Jesus is said to be thought to be (meaning that he wasn't actually) the son of Joseph, the word 'son' (υἱός) doesn't actually appear anywhere else in Luke's genealogy in the Greek.
There's no need to assume contradiction simply because we don't know the specifics concerning the details.
Instead of trying to understand the possible reasons behind why Matthew and Luke constructed their genealogies the way they did, you automatically assume that they didn't have a clue. It's intellectually dishonest and lazy, as well as hostile. I've already laid out some of the possible reasons why the genealogies look the way that they do.
In other words, you are speculating, as opposed to accepting the evidence that is in clear, unambiguous sight, and that evidence tells two separate narratives.
Your speculation has no evidence. None. Just your speculation, and that doesn't make it real.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. . . I can live with that. 
